One Verse At A Time...

[crazy-tiger]

Hell no ... I do not accept Sub as interpreter of scripture for me, or for 90 fricken percent of the Biblical scholars who view documentary hypothesis as valid.

 

You're on your own, Sub.... you're interpretations wouldn't hold water in the average seminary discussion. Hell they wouldn't hold water in my mainstream congregation.

 

If you do not believe in what I am saying you are not a Christian, point blank.

Oh man... has he just said that a Christian isn't a Christian?

It is spot-on for a Christian interpretation. I am asking you to challenge me on that statement, so go ahead and do it.

Then be so kind as to explain why there are so many different types of Christian and why they all interpret it in a different way...

 

 

 

You're either going to ignore this, claim there is no difference, or insist that they aren't "True Christians" One thing you won't do, is admit that you're wrong...

 

BOW DOWN BEFORE ME, FOR I CAN SEE THE FUTURE!

[SkepticOfBible]

You're still trying to say that God, despite saying how something WILL happen, has gone and used a different way to bring about a new covenant... a way that matches what he said about false prophets.

See, he warned about people who did EXACTLY what Jesus did, who said EXACTLY what Jesus said, who re-wrote Gods Law EXACTLY like Jesus did... he warned about that, and you want us to believe that he used that method to bring about a new covenant??

If God did indeed do that, then he's got a sick and twisted sense of humour... since it resulted in his chosen people, the very people who the covenant was for, rejecting it! And God, being all-knowing, knew this would be the result...

True, Jews(including who dies in the Nazi Holocaust) who reject JC will suffer in hell. What kind of better covenatnt is that? If 90% of the world poplulation is gonna suffer in hell, then how is this based on better promise?

 

Turning Christianity Into The Word Of God

 

Contrary to the assertions of fundamentalist Christians, the Bible does not display a teaching so harmonious and consistent that it could only have come from a supernatural deity.

There is evidence for manipulation of scripture to embellish and enhance credibility, coupled with internal contradictions, and topped off with a large helping of threatened punishments for failure to believe.

Acts 13:51-52

51-But they shook off the dust of their feet against them, and came unto Iconium.

52-And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost.

If the disciples were really filled with the Holy Spirit then you'd think they wouldn't contradict the word of God, nor would they need to pull Old Testament verses out of context and modify them to convince people that they represented God.

Christianity has no problem advertising itself as the one true religion yet displays symptoms of deception right from the beginning.

Christian preachers often proclaim that as the world sinks into an abyss and approaches judgment day, all "unsaved" humanity will have to turn to Christians for help in understanding God. Christianity will eventually dominate because only Christians have the truth about God.

Yet, even this commonly employed Christian assertion contradicts the Bible.

According to Bible prophecy, humanity will turn to the Jews for knowledge of God and not to Christians.

 

Zech 8:23

Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.

 

If the Bible really is the word of God, Christians would be wise to stop assuming that they are God's new chosen people or that they have superior knowledge about God.

 

So you see, if "those days" of the New covenant is here, then I guess we should be asking the jews about God, not christians

[SkepticOfBible]

If you do not believe in what I am saying you are not a Christian, point blank.

And finally we see the truth. In short OM, he is saying that if you don't believe in his theological preferences, man-made doctrine, speculations and whims, you are not a christians.

 

So finally he gets to decide correct canon of the bible, correct interpretation of god's word, and he get's to decide who goes to hell or not.

 

Off course we have to overlook his verse twisting and lies that he displayed in all of his post.

[SkepticOfBible]

Sub_zero raised the point about the historical accuracy of the bible

 

The third year of the reign of Jehoiakim would be 606 BCE, at which time Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king of Babylon. It was 597 BCE that Nebuchadnezzar invaded Jerusalem for the first time (without actually destroying it). By that time Jehohiakim was dead and his son, Jehoiachin, was ruling Dan 1:1

 

 

Apparently, the author of Daniel knew of only two Babylonian kings during the period of the exile: Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, who he wrongly thought was the son of Nebuchadnezzar. But Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BCE and was succeeded by his son, Awil-Marduk (referred to in the bible as "Evilmerodach" [see 2 Kg.25:27 and Jer.52:31]). In 560 BCE, Amel-Marduk was assassinated by his brother-in-law, Nergal-shar-usur. The next and last king of Babylon was Nabonidus who reigned from 556 to 539, when Babylon was conquered by Cyrus. It was Nabonidus, and not Belshazzar, who was the last of the Babylonian kings. Belshazzar was a the son and viceroy of Nabonidus. But he was not a king, and was not the son (or any other relation) of Nebuchadnezzar. Dan 5:2,11,18,22

 

Darius the Median is a fictitious character whom the author perhaps confused with Darius I of Persia, who came to the throne in 521 BCE, 17 years after the fall of Babylon. The author of Daniel incorrectly makes him the successor of Belshazzar instead of Cyrus Dan 5:31

 

Skeptic Annontated Bible

 

 

The fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known.

 

A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua.

 

Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.

 

The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.

 

Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).

............

Archaeological silence is another problem that biblical inerrantists don't like to talk about. According to the Bible, the Israelite tribes were united into one nation that had a glorious history during the reigns of king David and his son Solomon, yet the archaeological record is completely silent about these two kings except for two disputed inscriptions that some think are references to "the house of David." This is strange indeed considering that references to Hebrew kings of much less biblical importance (Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Zedekiah, etc.) have been found in extrabiblical records. This archaeological silence doesn't prove that David and Solomon did not exist, but it certainly gives all but biblical inerrantists pause to wonder.

 

 

 

 

Archaeology and Biblical Accuracy

 

Also see

 

Bad History in the Book of Daniel

 

Where is the archealogical evidence for the following

 

1)The events in the book of Exodus(the bible doesn't even mention which Pharoah it is talking about. So much for historical detail and accuracy)

2)The Grand Temple of Solomon

3)The Tomb of Jesus

4)That Herod issued a decree to kill the children of Bethelem

5)The NT contradicts about the birthdate of Jesus ( Taxation And Cesuses Of Augustus Caesar)

[Antlerman]

Hell no ... I do not accept Sub as interpreter of scripture for me, or for 90 fricken percent of the Biblical scholars who view documentary hypothesis as valid.

 

You're on your own, Sub.... you're interpretations wouldn't hold water in the average seminary discussion. Hell they wouldn't hold water in my mainstream congregation.

 

If you do not believe in what I am saying you are not a Christian, point blank.

I'm so sorry Open_Minded, I guess you are not a Christian because you are not accepting what Sub is saying, "point blank".

 

Well, we're all here for you with love and acceptance. BTW, we will continue to love and accept you no matter if what you believe isn’t exactly, identically, 100 percent what the council of ExC drafted together at the council of BOB in 1998 as the immutable, unshakable, unquestionably accurate, one and only true belief.

 

Sub... that invite goes to you too; except the only requirement is that you have to love and accept other people too like OM does all the time. I know overcoming rigid and inflexible dogma and doctrines of church councils will be tough for you, but we'll support you once you've seen the greater light of human love.

[Open_Minded]

You're on your own, Sub.... you're interpretations wouldn't hold water in the average seminary discussion. Hell they wouldn't hold water in my mainstream congregation.

If you do not believe in what I am saying you are not a Christian, point blank.

I'm so sorry Open_Minded, I guess you are not a Christian because you are not accepting what Sub is saying, "point blank".

 

Oh... OMG .... I needed a good laugh. That's OK, you guys, when Sub infomed us all that the Bible is the ONLY TRUTH because he "presupposes" that to be so... I figured I was damned for hell.

 

He's just laying out his cards ... we all knew what he had anyway, right? Sub... this is NOT the first time I've been accused of not being a "True" Christian, and it won't be the last time. I'm beginning to wear the haretic badge quite proudly these days.

 

Well, we're all here for you with love and acceptance. BTW, we will continue to love and accept you no matter if what you believe isn’t exactly, identically, 100 percent what the council of ExC drafted together at the council of BOB in 1998 as the immutable, unshakable, unquestionably accurate, one and only true belief.

 

OK... now you have to fill me in - where are the records of this council of BOB.

 

I thought the only loyalties around here were to Cute Bunny, the Holy Spook and more recently to Scotty our Father in the space ship in the sky.

 

I know - maybe would could pray to Scotty our Father and ask him to beam Sub_Zero up to the star ship. Then Sub would believe us... that would be immutable proof that the Cute Bunny died for our sins.

 

 

Well back to the discussion ... I've not forgotten where we're at Sub... Again... everyone...sorry to keep bumping up my requests of Sub.. but he likes to ignore me.

 

QUOTE(sub_zer0 @ Feb 9 2006, 04:35 PM)

QUOTE(Open_Minded @ Feb 9 2006, 05:32 PM)

By what authority, outside the Bible, can you prove that the Bible is the "ONLY TRUTH"?

Again, you name it, archeology and history both validate the Bible in many ways.

You keep saying archeaology and history validate literal interpretation of the Bible in many ways. And yet you bring nothing concrete to the discussion.

 

Go get the archealogical evidence ... Sub... please do.

 

Before you do though, you best keep in mind that I am a major history buff. My book case is plumb full of books on ancient archeaology. Starting from the earliest civilizations in the Middle East - at Sumer - and going through the entire period in which the Bible was written. They don't just sit on the book case either, Sub. They get use. So don't come in here with any pansy theology that you "presuppose" is truth.

 

You're better off with Asimov - he displays more compassion for you than I can muster at this point in my life.

 

I'm waiting ...

[Ziggy]

Really, it isn't about proving me wrong. I see the proof all around me, creation itself proves to me there is a God.

Sub Zero The argument regarding 'proof' of christ could go on indefinately so i am not addressing that. I agree with you that faith cannot be explained in absolute terms with actual proof.. otherwise it would not be a faith. Anyone who has any kind of faith understands this. The problem comes when some one elses faith is rubbished because it is different from yours Then you either accept thier faith or you have to show why yours is the only one

 

Anyway ..

The question I have is about interpretation which is I think is close to your original question. First i am not anti-christian per se so don't be defensive - only honest

 

1

The Nicene Creed is a summary of what you believe

 

The Creed does mention salvation and heaven but does not mention Hell / punishment

 

Are your views on Hell and punishment that all those who are not saved by faith in Christ are going to eternal damnation. point. blank? This would presumably include OM even though he believes Christ to be the Word Made Flesh (biblically sound) and who does call himself Chrsitian

 

What do make of the last part of the creed

'I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins'

Can some one be saved without being baptised?

You would have to say yes to this otherwise what about the story of the guy 'saved' while being crucified with Christ

So if you do say Yes to this does that not open the door slightly to the question... who is saved?

Is it as strict as protestant evagelical christians (ie not the branch of Christianity that existed at the time the Nicene Creed was witten) preach? Or is there some leaway ? ... any ... at all?

 

And of bible falibility

That story of the thief on the cross being saved please consider two verses

Mark 15 vrs 32.

And the two who were crucified with him insulted him also

Luke 24 Vrs 39 - 43 Clearly telling a story of one of the of the other hangee's being told ' today you will be in paradise with me'

 

So there is a contradiction based on what Luke heard and what Mark heard / didn't hear. So its clear the Bible can be fallible because it was written by humans who are of course fallible

And if in this example the bible can be shown to be contradictory then surely you have to accept that you have to read the bible 'in context' and with understanding that it could be falible because it was written by man?

[Ouroboros]

Sub_Zer0,

 

It surprises me that you are a Catholic, it surely didn't sound like you were one during the earlier discussions, but please correct me if my impression is wrong.

[NotBlinded]

1) Christianity is based on the Bible, if the Bible isn't true when Christian theology and doctrine is question than Christianity isn't true.

You see, I used to believe that also...even when I rejected Christianity! That is just not the case sub. There is another option. The profound, philosophical truths in the bible are 100% true, but what your brand of Christianity claims as the truth is based on misunderstanding those profound, philosophical truths as literal truths.

 

O_M is a Christian and recognizes that there are many ways, or religions, that understand these truths. All are pointers to lead one to 'know' God. One does not have rights above the others. If they are interpreted that way, the followers are missing the message! It doesn't matter if there are people that have never heard of Jesus because their spiritual speakers have been saying the same things a half a world away thousands of years ago. The message is the same...we are all the essence of God (whatever that entails) and to not believe that, causes separation and judgement that leads to evil. What you are doing here is setting yourself above everyone else that doesn't think like you. That is exactly what one can expect when you see yourself as separate. Follow the chain sub and where you are is a result of you misunderstanding the message. You are not getting the essence of the stories. You are taking them as literal fact...a big mistake, IMO.

[Ouroboros]

No it is mine and every other Christians belief based on CHRIST and His ways, not mans.

But on the other hand, from your earlier comment, you want us to believe you and your interpretation of the Bible. So if I'd become a Christian based on Your faith, then I'm not basing it on the Bible, evidence or anything else, but only on that I believe exactly what you believe.

 

You not only believe in the infallible Bible, but you also believe in the infallible Sub_Zer0. That is very prideful and is a sin. Your own faith and your own Bible say that no man is perfect, so how can you claim perfection? Are you God? Have you made yourself above the word of God? The way you have presented yourself is that your interpretations are the only true word of God, which means you have put yourself above the Bible, and you are blaspheming!

[NotBlinded]

BOW DOWN BEFORE ME, FOR I CAN SEE THE FUTURE!

 

Well, there you did it, you went and scared me to death.

[Ouroboros]

I'd be surprised too but I don't think he is a Catholic at all, which would bring up a little problem with having to accept the Nicene Creed. Even so, I'd like to see where in the bible it says that one must accept the Nicene Creed.... and yes, also I'd like to see where in the bible it says one must accept the sayings of a character in the 21st century known as Sub_Zero

I'm with you. I was going the same way with it, because the Nicene Creed clearly states "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church."

 

So he must be a Catholic. If not then, by his own admission, he is not a Christian.

[scitsofreaky]

That as well is why I have my faith. Granted recently there have been spirited debates within my family of certain elements that are taught in the Bible explicitly.

You must be so sad that some of your family members aren't True Christians and would therefore go to hell.

Sub Zero The argument regarding 'proof' of christ could go on indefinately so i am not addressing that. I agree with you that faith cannot be explained in absolute terms with actual proof.. otherwise it would not be a faith. Anyone who has any kind of faith understands this.

My problem is that sub doesn't seem to have a reason to hold the faith 9s0he does. (S)He believes because nobody has proven him wrong. Despite what sub says, (s)he has said outright that no evidence will be accepted that contradicts The Bible, so it is impossible for us to give any evidence.

There are two types of faith, faith and blind faith. With faith, you trust the current evidence and conclusions. But with blind faith, you trust something just because you do. Sub has time and again demonstrated blind faith, thus making any real discussion all but impossible.

[NotBlinded]

But on the other hand, from your earlier comment, you want us to believe you and your interpretation of the Bible. So if I'd become a Christian based on Your faith, then I'm not basing it on the Bible, evidence or anything else, but only on that I believe exactly what you believe.

 

You not only believe in the infallible Bible, but you also believe in the infallible Sub_Zer0. That is very prideful and is a sin. Your own faith and your own Bible say that no man is perfect, so how can you claim perfection? Are you God? Have you made yourself above the word of God? The way you have presented yourself is that your interpretations are the only true word of God, which means you have put yourself above the Bible, and you are blaspheming!

Sub,

 

Put what Hans said above and what I said here together:

 

...The message is the same...we are all the essence of God (whatever that entails) and to not believe that, causes separation and judgement that leads to evil. What you are doing here is setting yourself above everyone else that doesn't think like you. That is exactly what one can expect when you see yourself as separate. Follow the chain sub and where you are is a result of you misunderstanding the message. You are not getting the essence of the stories. You are taking them as literal fact...a big mistake, IMO.

And you might understand what is happening. But, don't look outside for yourself...a mirror never tells the truth, sub. You must look inside yourself where the eyes can't see, and the ears can't hear. The silence speaks loudly, but you must 'listen'.

[Antlerman]

OMG! Now it all makes sense. If you do not accept what Sub says, you are not a Christian? HE'S THE POPE OF ROME!!!! He is the binding voice of Christ on Earth!! No wonder he doesn't have to appeal to authority, HE IS THE AUTHORITY!

 

Reason is pointless. Acceptance is mandatory. Kiss the ring and be saved.

[Open_Minded]

OMG! Now it all makes sense. If you do not accept what Sub says, you are not a Christian? HE'S THE POPE OF ROME!!!! He is the binding voice of Christ on Earth!! No wonder he doesn't have to appeal to authority, HE IS THE AUTHORITY!

 

Reason is pointless. Acceptance is mandatory. Kiss the ring and be saved.

 

OMG, Antlerman, you're right. The Holy See has come to visit Ex-C. I think we aught to start a new thread.

 

Welcome: Benedictus XVI (Joseph Ratzinger)

 

I've just one question. Why would the HOLY SEE take the username "Sub_Zero"?

 

 

At any rate, I guess the joke's on us. We're all destined for hell because Sub "presupposes" it.

[NotBlinded]

Meet Subzero below. This is what one becomes when they read the bible literally!

[Ouroboros]

What bugs me is that most Catholics are pretty open about discussion and not so extreme literalists in their interpretations, not like SubZ. And I thought the Catholic Church believed that you're a true Christian only if you belong to the Catholic Church.

[crazy-tiger]

BOW DOWN BEFORE ME, FOR I CAN SEE THE FUTURE!

 

Well, there you did it, you went and scared me to death.

Heh... I knew that was gonna happen...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NotBlinded]

Meet Subzero below. This is what one becomes when they read the bible literally!

 

You forgot shooting flames from the eyes and frightened puny humans.

This one shows what happens to the ones that don't believe in Subzero. Oh...that head belongs to O_M.

[Open_Minded]

What bugs me is that most Catholics are pretty open about discussion and not so extreme literalists in their interpretations, not like SubZ. And I thought the Catholic Church believed that you're a true Christian only if you belong to the Catholic Church.

 

OK... I can speak to this one. My parents grew up Catholic. Two siblings consider themselves Catholic (in a liberal sense). Their beliefs are very similar to mine.

 

We also have a very large extended family. My Dad's side had 12 siblings, my Mom's had 6 siblings. We've six siblings in the immediate family. (hey, they are Catholic what do you expect?)

 

Anyway. There is a real core of liberal to mainstream Catholics that would compare to most mainstream to liberal Christianity.

 

There is however a very fundamentalist bunch of Catholics as well. They consider themselves TRUE Catholics because they adhere to pre-Vatican II theology. They have Latin Masses, the whole works.

 

Mel Gibson and The Passion of the Christ came out of this particular strain of Catholism. I have first cousins who adhere to this strain of Catholism.

 

 

All that aside ... many mainstream churches adhere to the Nicene Creed. Our church uses it at Traditional and Contemporary services. We DO NOT USE it at our meditative/interfaith service.

 

So... it's anybody's guess what Sub is. I'm leaning with Antlerman - that Sub thinks he's the HOLY SEE.

 

 

This one shows what happens to the ones that don't believe in Subzero. Oh...that head belongs to O_M.

 

NotBlinded....

 

Thanks for the laugh... tears were streaming down my face.

 

I think you answered a question I've been wondering about:

 

Who is condemned further into the depths of hell. You apostates or heretics (Haretics) like me?

[Ouroboros]

All that aside ... many mainstream churches adhere to the Nicene Creed. Our church uses it at Traditional and Contemporary services. We DO NOT USE it at our meditative/interfaith service.

Yes, of course they do, with just one exception, which is the last part of the creed that say there's only one holy church and it's the catholic church. Many Christians adhere to the Nicene Creed but remove that part. So they believe the people that made the creed were led by the Holy Spirit to write the first part, but not led by the Holy Spirit to write the last part. And furthermore, many Christians believe they are themselves led by the Holy Spirit to remove that last part from the creed, but keep the first part. It only shows that they pick and chose what the Holy Spirit supposedly say and do, and they're not led by the Holy Spirit at all. It's all arbitrary and personal preference.

 

So... it's anybody's guess what Sub is. I'm leaning with Antlerman - that Sub thinks he's the HOLY SEE.

Yup. But in my opinion he's Wholey Blind.

[greasemonkey]

Okay SubZ, and sorry O_M, but looks like both of you are screwed along with the rest of us...

 

Since SubZ requested before that we prove him wrong, I guess the lowly Greasemonkey will step up to the plate with definate PROOF that SubZ is wrong!!!

 

here you go! (and this is just a small sampling): The Table Spread

 

5:10 And they who disbelieve and deny Our revelations, such are rightful owners of hell.

 

5:14 And with those who say: "Lo! we are Christians," We made a covenant, but they forgot a part of that whereof they were admonished. Therefor We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will inform them of their handiwork.

 

5:17 They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who then can do aught against Allah, if He had willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth ? Allah's is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He createth what He will. And Allah is Able to do all things.

 

I think we can all take notice that verse 14 specifically addresses SubZ himself, as he was just "stirring up emnity" against one of his own (point blank even!), so I think that serves as proof and the power of the book's authenticity. I mean geez, by Sub's condemnation of O_M (and probably the greater portion of today's X-ians), he has pretty much admitted that Christianity is indeed a minority religion; I don't think Islam would have anywhere near as many followers as it does if it were not the one true and correct religion.

 

go ahead SubZ, prove I'm wrong!!! I have specific proof from a holy book inspired by God Himself that says you are full of crap. It seems like you should hold yourself to the same standards you wish to hold us to and prove it is wrong.

[crazy-tiger]

go ahead SubZ, prove I'm wrong!!! I have specific proof from a holy book inspired by God Himself that says you are full of crap. It seems like you should hold yourself to the same standards you wish to hold us to and prove it is wrong.

Silly Greasemonkey... If it's in the Bible, then it can be twisted to say something it doesn't by old SZ, and if it's not in the Bible and contradicts it, then it's not true.

 

You know that SZ is going to claim it's false, thus proving you wrong...

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that making such a claim is in no way proof that the claim is correct seems to have gone so far over SZ's head that it's in orbit... of a star in the Lesser Magellanic Cloud.

[Amanda]

Really, it isn't about proving me wrong. I see the proof all around me, creation itself proves to me there is a God. The Bible has been validated time and time again from outside sources.

 

Sub Zero, I believe you have gotten some good things out of the Bible! However, I'm curious to know these validating outside sources, in the creation of God all around us now, of the proof that satan posesses animals and makes them speak a human language, and that there are trees named 'good and evil' producing fruit forbidden by God?